This case involves three contiguous lots (A, B and C), one of which (C) was landlocked, and all of which were originally owned by one person. The original owner filed a subdivision plat dividing the property into these three lots and showing something labeled “existing easement” running from the road, into Lot A and through all three lots. The middle lot (B) was sold first, to the Brookses. The original owner, who still owned A and C, included an easement in the deed giving himself an easement across Lots A and B to reach C (which was landlocked). Eventually, he sold Lot C to the Brookses as well, and finally, Lot A was sold to the Soukups. The Supreme Court was asked in this case to determine whether the easement across the Soukups’ Lot A still existed and if the Brookses had a right to use it to reach Lots B and C.
At first glance, it might appear obvious that there was no easement across Lot A because of the doctrine of “merger.” Simply put, a person cannot reserve an easement to himself over land he owns. Thus, when the original owner sold Lot B to the Brookses, the deed reserved an easement for the original owner to cross over Lot A and Lot B to reach Lot C. However, under the doctrine of merger, he couldn’t reserve an easement across Lot A because he owned Lot A; he could travel over Lot A anywhere he wanted to. The easement “merged” into full ownership of that lot and never really existed.
The Supreme Court, nevertheless, found that the easement across Lot A had arisen in a different way, when the original owner sold Lot C to the Brookses. That deed conveyed Lot C “together with the perpetual right and easement for all purposes” over the “existing easement” shown on the original recorded subdivision plan. The Court found that this deed expressly conveyed (and created) an easement across Lot A (which he still owned) for the benefit of the owners of Lot C. This avoids the problem of merger because the original owner was not reserving the easement across his own land for himself to use, but for someone else to use (the new owners of Lot C).
Furthermore, the Court found this result was not unfair to the Soukups even though the easement was now benefitting Lots B and C (rather than just Lot B). The Court found that the easement through Lot A could serve both Lots B and C as long as it did not impose an “unreasonable burden” on Lot A. In addition, the Court dismissed the Soukups’ argument that their deed to Lot A never mentioned the easement running across it, calling that omission “of no consequence.” The original subdivision plan for the three lots, referenced in their deed, included the “existing easement” and should have been enough to put them on notice of the easement.